Rasmussen: Obama’s speech on Libya didn’t move the needle

posted at 2:15 pm on March 30, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier today, I pointed to two polls showing new lows for Barack Obama on job approval, leadership, and re-elect numbers. In doing so, I noted that both Quinnipiac and Gallup conducted their survey prior to the President’s speech on Monday night and that Obama might get a bump after belatedly explaining his new military adventure ten days after starting it. Today, Rasmussen released a new poll showing that Obama didn’t get a bump at all in a survey taken both before and after the speech, and in some ways support has eroded for the mission:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters rate the Obama administration’s response to the Libya situation as good or excellent, marking little change from two previous surveys. Thirty percent (30%) give the administration poor marks, up from 21% earlier this month before the president committed U.S. forces to Libya. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Forty percent (40%) of voters felt at that time that the administration was doing a good or excellent job responding to the political crisis in Libya. Last week, with the U.S. military actively involved in Libya, 41% rated the Obama administration’s response as good or excellent, but 28% said it was doing a poor job.

The numbers also worsened slightly for the president from last week when voters are asked if Libya is vital to U.S. national security these days. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of voters say yes, while 48% say no, up six points from a week ago. Twenty-four percent (24%) remain undecided.

The survey took place on Monday and Tuesday nights, and Rasmussen reports that there was no substantial difference in response between the two. If Obama had a bump in store for his military mission in Libya, one would have expected to see an increase in support immediately afterward. Without that kind of bump, it appears that Obama failed to make his case, although it can also be said that he hasn’t damaged it immediately, either.

The internals look particularly bad for Obama. He gets high marks from fellow Democrats on his handling of the crisis, 72/24, better than what was seen in Quinnipiac and Gallup polls earlier, but significantly more of them say they’re not paying attention to the issue (18%, as opposed to 11% of GOP and independent voters). Republicans predictably give him almost exactly the opposite rating, 21/72. Independents are lined up almost 2-1 in disapproval, 33/65, with 43% giving the lowest rating of “poor”.

So far, Obama has also failed to make the case that Libya is a “vital national security interest,” either. A bare plurality of Democrats agree, 39/32 with 29% saying they’re not sure. Majorities of both Republicans (20/57) and independents (22/57) disagree. Along ideological grounds, all self-described demos also disagree: 23/53 for conservatives, 29/48 for moderates, and 34/38 for liberals, leading to the 27/48 overall number.

The failure of Obama to build support from the opening moments of Odyssey Dawn has left the American electorate skeptical of the mission, and skeptical of Obama’s leadership. The 43/53 rating on leadership in this crisis does not bode well for Obama’s political future, especially if this turns into a stalemated civil war.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

The 43/53 rating on leadership in this crisis does not bode well for Obama’s political future, especially if this turns into a stalemated civil war.

If this turns into a lengthy conflict that we’re tied to(or ends quickly but with Qaddafi still in charge), then Obama’s finished. The left will still back him, but it’ll be tepid support. And since 2012 will be all about turnout, that’s not the mood you want amongst your base going into that election.

I’ll wager that Obama’s Libya Speech did move the needle DOWN! If not in quantity then in quality of his speech’s NEGATIVE affect on the public.

Breitbart Big Peace has a video of a Chicago Socialist street protest rally against Obama’s Egyptian and Libyan Wars. Obama’s very own political hometown grassroots organizations are united against him.

the only thing I did that night was moved my right hand toward my mouth and pour a frothy, hoppy beverage into it while I watched a movie. This guy had the opportunity to try to convince us this was the right thing to do 2 weeks, er…14 days ago and he failed to do it. He’s on his own, this is his baby, he gets the bill and he pays the whole freight on it plus tax.

Without that kind of bump, it appears that Obama failed to make his case, although it can also be said that he hasn’t damaged it immediately, either.

His supporters will lick his a$$ no matter what he says, so there’s little expectation that the numbers would get much worse, no matter what happens.

On the other hand, those of us with two brain cells to rub together already know he’s full of @#$%, incompetent and lying through his teeth, and therefore there’s little expectation that the numbers would improve much either.

Not sure I’ve ever found any other US politician as despicable as Obama, and I quite literally hate him – and by and large that extends to his sycophant followers. May God help me temper that a bit; just being honest.

Willing or not, Obama HAS been following Bush’s lead all along, kicking and screaming “inheritance” every step of the way until it finally sank into his densely lame brain that people now see Obama in all of his own faults, no matter which scapegoat Obama targets.

The “news” business of referencing constitutional conservatives negatively, particularly as if ignorant and unsophisticated “radicals”, certainly divides the wheat from the chaff.

Americans who willingly vote for another politician in the same vein as what America has chosen will only get more of what we are suffering now. Decorate such a “new” candidate in “electability” banners as if that means anything other than “more of the same”.

The Clinton, Bush and Obama wars are effecting the absolute genocide of indigenous Christians from their hereditary homelands in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

Today, AGAIN neoconservatives and RINOs are screaming for bloody murder and removal of any Liberty in Islam AS IF on humanitarian moral authority grounds.

Domestically, these same neoconservatives refuse to recognize the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, having themselves established the DHS that denies relevance to the US Constitution, choosing rather to attack legitimate and lawful American citizens and veterans while arming terrorists who illegally enter the US through borders that the DHS refuses to secure. Neoconservatives are working to destabilize the population within our own nation, spending the national treasury into bankruptcy and debt to CHINA, taxing US citizens (not GM!) and businesses in order to bail-out the “too big to fail” global finance industry, making the rich even richer and the poor even poorer, removing any value from the US Dollar. Neoconservatives anticipate the global authoritarianism of the New World Order as if “smart” wanting in on the take.

You’re either with Obama or your with Qadaffi.
Good Lt on March 30, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Which is the bigger threat to the USA, Obama or Qadaffi?
petefrt on March 30, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Good Lt, that ultimatum certainly is stuck on stupid, as if one may NOT be against both Obama and Qadhafi, because you said so.

petefrt, Obama has OFFICIALLY rescinded Constitutional Governance from the USA.

maverick muse on March 30, 2011 at 2:34 PM

..no, it is not.

Both made good points. Qadaffi: sponsored terrorism and hectored the United States until he had that come-to-Jesus epiphany and flushed all of his nukes. Still a butt-wipe but keeps al Queda down in his country. Woudl not be harmfuil to the U.S. if he remained in power. Obama: incautious, uncaring, inexperienced POTUS who knows squat about his job and has wrought more damage — economically and constitutionally — than any of his predecessors, the entire current and former congresses, and Jimmah Carter combined..

Not sure I’ve ever found any other US politician as despicable as Obama, and I quite literally hate him – and by and large that extends to his sycophant followers. May God help me temper that a bit; just being honest.

Qadhafi’s Libyan oil supplies are being usurped by the globalist financiers of the New World Order, AS IF they need US tax funds sponsoring the warfare. Again, Iran thrives at the expense of the populations of that region and the world as peace will no longer be an option in perpetual warfare.

..wow! two good links. Thanks. Seems the Q poll had more than the two items of bad news that Ed wrote about.

I’m guessing that we’re gonna end up with a nutless candidate like Mittens who will paddy-cake all the way through the 2012 election and utter some gracious concession speech, saddling us with four more years of this clown.

Do you think one of his political gurus said, “Hey Bush won reelection in 2004 because people didn’t want to change horses in the middle of a war, so we need a war and we will win reelection?” Just trying to figure out how they think this could possibly help him.

Fools are in charge. The west deserves its self-destruction due to PC and other Utopian idealistic idiocies.

Schadenfreude on March 30, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Western Civilization includes the likes of me, and I disagree with your condemnation that I deserve to be destroyed by global elitists who’ve usurped my rights and my Constitutional Government for their own authoritarian feudal monopoly on power.

People banter “deserve” without realizing that the judgment they cast takes them down along with everything else.